Inspired by a recent study in the U.K showing that those with the most friends in school were the ones who made the most money later on, a Los Angeles Times columnist asked just how were  we qualifying friends these days. She worried that with the rise of social networks and the ability to literally rack up "friends" where you (and others) can see them proudly displayed, we may be losing sight of the point of having friends. From the Los Angeles Times article:

The idea of friendship, at least among the growing population of Internet social networkers, is to attain as many of these not-really-friends as possible. Hence, the alcoholism analogy, which I don't make lightly. Like cheap wine, "friends" provide a high that can only be sustained by acquiring more and more of them. Quantity trumps quality.

For those of us who joined Facebook in its infancy when it was still exclusively for college students, this mentality probably sounds familiar. We all either knew or embarrassingly enough were that person who engaged in a friending war that comprised of two or more partners competing to see just how many points, err..friends, they could acquire. But then, as with what happens in most single objective competitions (like drinking games) dreamed up in college dorm rooms, this eventually got old.

Over time, the novelty of the numbers game wore off and the site became more about socializing in the good old-fashioned sense of the word: making plans to get together, sending birthday greetings, sharing inside jokes, etc. And no, this wasn't the case with all 382 friends on your list, but so it goes in real life where you pick and choose who makes up your core group and who exists as satellites on the periphery. The difference with having a tangible social network online that tracks all of those people indiscriminately is that you are more likely to notice if one of your inner circle buddies starts drifting away. Or, conversely, if one of the outer circle acquaintances actually does seem like someone you'd like to know a little better. Sites like Facebook, MySpace and the like are just the tools that allow you to reach across those distances.

As I re-read this, I can't help but notice how elementary it all sounds. And I'm guessing anyone under a certain age would agree. For the youngest generation of users, even the question of Facebook discretion (aside from extreme exceptions) probably sounds like a non-issue. In high school today to know someone is to be their Facebook friend.

So maybe the valuable lesson here isn't for the kids out there, but rather for the adults who are venturing out into the brave new social playground for the first time. Perhaps, this is an opportunity for reverse mentorship of a more personal nature where children and younger colleagues can sit down with older neophytes and explain the truths of Facebook. How in the same way there are people in your life you consider "bona fide BFFs" and others "you air kiss at a party once a year," on Facebook there are some friends you have a "Wall to Wall" conversation that runs on for multiple pages, others you post a message once a year on their birthday, and others still whom you forget were even born. In short, if you interpret "friends" as Facebookspeak for "people you know," you can pretty much assign the same value system for friendships that you always have. Without cheapening the meaning.

Categorized under: Web

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. If you are a Facebook user, comment using your Facebook account.